RE: Do you support Canadi
I think it's OK to be gay in the forces in the states at least from a legal standpoint.
I think it's OK to be gay in the forces in the states at least from a legal standpoint.
Do you support Canadian Troops?
- Thread starter Jersay
- Start date
Paradox, It is in a sence, but they have a policy that if you do not mention it, it is ok. Plus with the current problems with troop levels the enforcement of this rule is not really being followed. Though I think they should remove the whole ban on gays in the armed forces fully.
Mogz
Though we disagree on how it should be done, at least we can agree that it is something which must be done! I think it the larger aspect of the events at hand that is the main focus. Though I merely object to what I think is the better way of deploying our troops. Though some may say it's almost completely cosmetic I believe it could mean the difference between success and failure, a waste of time or a triumph of democracy. I can only hope our troops will be seen in a good light there as UN peace keepers and not as a occupation force. I still have hopes that this will happen even with the appearance of the UN uniform and arms standerds.
Afcanistan before the civil war between the Communists and Islamists was a modern nation and one which was on it's way to a Liberal future. Though Afcanistan has completely done a 180, I think our goal should be to return Afcanistan to the relitive peace and prospartity of the 1960's and early 1970's. The hurdle to this is not Russian envolvment, not American or the UN but the Taliban and the extremist Islamist forces which are actually coming from an American ally in that of Pakistain which is the root cause of the last 35 years of instability in Afcanistain. Also Pakistain which is currently a dictatorship removed the ex-PM in a Coup, first and formost the USA and theUN should demand that Pakistain reinstall the old government and allow for democratic elections to take place.
The history of Pakistain has been a period of short lived democracys with long periods of dicatorships and extremist islamist activities. This has leaked into Afcanistain and Pakistain will have to change for Afcanistain to change as well.
Mogz
Though we disagree on how it should be done, at least we can agree that it is something which must be done! I think it the larger aspect of the events at hand that is the main focus. Though I merely object to what I think is the better way of deploying our troops. Though some may say it's almost completely cosmetic I believe it could mean the difference between success and failure, a waste of time or a triumph of democracy. I can only hope our troops will be seen in a good light there as UN peace keepers and not as a occupation force. I still have hopes that this will happen even with the appearance of the UN uniform and arms standerds.
Afcanistan before the civil war between the Communists and Islamists was a modern nation and one which was on it's way to a Liberal future. Though Afcanistan has completely done a 180, I think our goal should be to return Afcanistan to the relitive peace and prospartity of the 1960's and early 1970's. The hurdle to this is not Russian envolvment, not American or the UN but the Taliban and the extremist Islamist forces which are actually coming from an American ally in that of Pakistain which is the root cause of the last 35 years of instability in Afcanistain. Also Pakistain which is currently a dictatorship removed the ex-PM in a Coup, first and formost the USA and theUN should demand that Pakistain reinstall the old government and allow for democratic elections to take place.
The history of Pakistain has been a period of short lived democracys with long periods of dicatorships and extremist islamist activities. This has leaked into Afcanistain and Pakistain will have to change for Afcanistain to change as well.
Cortez,
Oh that's funny... Quick, run upstairs and tell your mom...
As another aside how about
The Armed Forces
A whole lot more than living in your mom's basement and acting tough on the internet because you couldn't do it to someone's face
You're a coward. These people in the photo deserve respect. Few of us here, safe at home, would be able or willing to do what they do. Disagree with the politics if you wish, hell, jump and scream out against the government, it's your right to do so, but don't make fun of or pass judgement on these soldiers.
As for the reference to satan, your mom should also tell you that he takes many forms, insulting, attacking, and laughing at the misfortunes of others are but some of them.
Oh that's funny... Quick, run upstairs and tell your mom...
As another aside how about
The Armed Forces
A whole lot more than living in your mom's basement and acting tough on the internet because you couldn't do it to someone's face
You're a coward. These people in the photo deserve respect. Few of us here, safe at home, would be able or willing to do what they do. Disagree with the politics if you wish, hell, jump and scream out against the government, it's your right to do so, but don't make fun of or pass judgement on these soldiers.
As for the reference to satan, your mom should also tell you that he takes many forms, insulting, attacking, and laughing at the misfortunes of others are but some of them.
you are puzzling
it was you that suggested that you were surprised that my mom let me see that movie...
so i took the ball and ran with it
insulting, and laughing at others actually are not even listed as problems in the 10 commandments
thou shall not kill
thou shall not bear false witness-- ie lie
thou shall not defile the name of god- ie use his name
- to commit crime
- ie illegal war
these are all listed
the military do all of the above and more
they are satanic
i stand by that
there is no prohibition against mocking the devil
i shall now return to my prayers
it was you that suggested that you were surprised that my mom let me see that movie...
so i took the ball and ran with it
insulting, and laughing at others actually are not even listed as problems in the 10 commandments
thou shall not kill
thou shall not bear false witness-- ie lie
thou shall not defile the name of god- ie use his name
- to commit crime
- ie illegal war
these are all listed
the military do all of the above and more
they are satanic
i stand by that
there is no prohibition against mocking the devil
i shall now return to my prayers
So, you restrict yourself to the 2 pages describing the 10 commandments and ignore the rest?
Should we also ignore the plight of our fellow human beings? Nothing in the commandments about that. How would you explain to Afghan women and children that Canada has decided to leave them to the selective beliefs of the Taliban once again? Thou shalt not kill, but it's OK to sit back and witness it without raising a hand to stop it?
Should we also ignore the plight of our fellow human beings? Nothing in the commandments about that. How would you explain to Afghan women and children that Canada has decided to leave them to the selective beliefs of the Taliban once again? Thou shalt not kill, but it's OK to sit back and witness it without raising a hand to stop it?
Under Clinton, homosexuality (orientation) was no longer a reason for deferment. Homosexual behaviour remains a reason for dismissal.
Afghanistan was never an economic powerhouse. Their biggest single export has been opium derivatives for a long time. Most of the crop has had final processing in Marsailles by the Mob for some 60 years.
Up until the Afghan government invited in the Russians, the military weapons there consisted mostly of WWll British stock. It was the Stinger Missile, not the tanks stripped from Iraq, that turned the tide in the war that followed. The American's tried to buy back the Stinger's for $5,000 each. Few were returned.
The Russians had attempted to set up one of those massive meetings (Haji??) to establish a political dialoque (and to extracate themselves) but agents provoceteur (?? out of Pakistan, undermined them. The Russians were suffering huge casualty rates (walking wounded) but it started to hit home when their pilots started to die.
In the first 3 days of the American- led invasion of Afghanistan over 5 thousand civilians died. There are now a series of loose affiliations with territorial warlords across Afghanistan and no true seeds of democracy. Afghanistan is a patchwork of tribal (ethnic) homelands overlaid by economic / military alliances. The Taliban are anathma to this traditional rule. If only they weren't so damned dogmatic and didn't hold to things like public execution. They should learn to do it behind high walls like the Texans.
The idea of imposing a democracy on a country that is really not a Nation is bizarre. The Americans should have learned to work with the Taliban in order to extricate the Al Qaida, rather than making demands that no sovereign government would allow. If there was such a screaming need to get the Al Qaida, why is it that the U.S. deferred to the Pakistani dictator rather than committing to actions similar to the Afghani invasion, when the Al Qaida were cornered?
The invasion of Afghanistan was done on opportunity to secure a land transfer site for oil pipelines from the 3 'Stans' and set up an eastern defensive boundary. I do not support our troops being there to advance American Hegemony. The price we will pay will be a lot of walking wounded.
Afghanistan was never an economic powerhouse. Their biggest single export has been opium derivatives for a long time. Most of the crop has had final processing in Marsailles by the Mob for some 60 years.
Up until the Afghan government invited in the Russians, the military weapons there consisted mostly of WWll British stock. It was the Stinger Missile, not the tanks stripped from Iraq, that turned the tide in the war that followed. The American's tried to buy back the Stinger's for $5,000 each. Few were returned.
The Russians had attempted to set up one of those massive meetings (Haji??) to establish a political dialoque (and to extracate themselves) but agents provoceteur (?? out of Pakistan, undermined them. The Russians were suffering huge casualty rates (walking wounded) but it started to hit home when their pilots started to die.
In the first 3 days of the American- led invasion of Afghanistan over 5 thousand civilians died. There are now a series of loose affiliations with territorial warlords across Afghanistan and no true seeds of democracy. Afghanistan is a patchwork of tribal (ethnic) homelands overlaid by economic / military alliances. The Taliban are anathma to this traditional rule. If only they weren't so damned dogmatic and didn't hold to things like public execution. They should learn to do it behind high walls like the Texans.
The idea of imposing a democracy on a country that is really not a Nation is bizarre. The Americans should have learned to work with the Taliban in order to extricate the Al Qaida, rather than making demands that no sovereign government would allow. If there was such a screaming need to get the Al Qaida, why is it that the U.S. deferred to the Pakistani dictator rather than committing to actions similar to the Afghani invasion, when the Al Qaida were cornered?
The invasion of Afghanistan was done on opportunity to secure a land transfer site for oil pipelines from the 3 'Stans' and set up an eastern defensive boundary. I do not support our troops being there to advance American Hegemony. The price we will pay will be a lot of walking wounded.
Jersay:
Johnny Utah has a point my friend. Given the current situation in Afghanistan, a U.N task force would hinder any progress. The United Nations, as I've said numerous times, does not work in a military capacity. Their ROEs are far too constricting and many times leave peacekeepers unable to act in the face of atrocities. I do feel that in the future a U.N. presence may be effective, but as it stands now, they'd merely get in the way of the WAR that is ongoing. As has been said before; in order to peacekeep, there must be peace to keep.
Johnny Utah has a point my friend. Given the current situation in Afghanistan, a U.N task force would hinder any progress. The United Nations, as I've said numerous times, does not work in a military capacity. Their ROEs are far too constricting and many times leave peacekeepers unable to act in the face of atrocities. I do feel that in the future a U.N. presence may be effective, but as it stands now, they'd merely get in the way of the WAR that is ongoing. As has been said before; in order to peacekeep, there must be peace to keep.